Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






Farrell 6, Us 3, Campos 2, Grgich 2, Ashard 1, Sf Puc 1, The City 1, Tony Hall 1, Mr. City 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 20, 2012
    11:00 - 11:30am PDT  

dramatic, like say, no this is not the time we're going to extend this committee. we're going to slow it down. and maybe reconstitute it and take a look at what we're doing and the other possibility is that because the function may be mandated by law, and we really do want to have that oversight work well, you might have to really take a look at the functioning of that committee. everyone agrees that the oversight is huge. there is billions of dollars at stake. it impacts the entire economy and that is one of the reasons that i think the problems are persisting. the other thing that is going on it's in the qwon connecticut context of the state mandate and the oversight that was intended from what i personally saw it's not functioning it's should. thank you.
[speaker not understood] i serve on the puc citizen advisory committee. i did want to speak in support of an extension. i'm not sure if this is the right amount of time, if it should be more or less. i'm happy to work with supervisor farrell and others to look at things that we could tweak about the composition or the reporting, so that it is more effective. i have heard a number of concerns over time about whether it's being too -- no effective enough -- no enough -- we certainly have a general obligation bond oversight committee and we have bond oversight at the city college. so we have a more tradition of bond oversight than in the past.
if this is not extended my understanding is that there would be effectively no oversight of the literally billions of dollars of [pwo-pbts/]s bonds that the puc has. so i would just offer those comments. on the legislation itself, sorry i did read it online 9-10, there there is no reference to section 1. there are section 2 and 3. unless you have any questions, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> through the chair to our city attorney real quick. does that make sense to have
that in there, section 1? >> yes. >> we have it online? >> right under "be it ordained." >> can i take time to answer the question why we put 2013 into the legislation? soly so i will give you an honest answer. i was the economist on it and the sf puc said give us a plan and we'll >> instructor:
>> instructor: so we picked 2013 for a reason, because state law, bay area water conservancy passed ab 1823 that said you must spend 50% of the money by 2010. 1 only% i hope you will take
supervisor hall's advice and take the whole committee under advisement. think about bringing it back to the board of supervisors and make sure they fill with positions of people dedicated to their jobs. if you have any questions. >> seeing no questions. thank you very much there are no questions from the committee [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed [ gavel ] supervisor farrell. >> thank you, chair kim and thank you to the member oz came to speak, both in favor and raising questions and supervisor tony hall again thank you for being here and
credit for you to the vision back in 2002. i think we have had heard some concerns about the committee for sure. and i have heard them before. at the same point in time we do have billions of dollars that are getting funneled through in terms of bonds through our public utilities commission currently, both ones that have been the subject of oversight and those that will be coming up. in my opinion i would rather extend this committee right now for a number of years, acknowledging there are areas of improvement. what we're going to end up january 2nd is no oversight at all and i think to me that is the worst of the two outcomes. i would rather fix it internally, if there are some issues. i think the composition of that committee rests with our rules committee and the board of supervisors and the other items that were talked about rest with the committee itself. we could certainly work and i know they have expressed a
willingness to work together on these issues. so i would very much be in favor of supporting it. it's legislationings that i sponsored. but it's a broader thing that i think that the puc would benefit from the oversight. so with that, i will go ahead and make the motion to forward this to the board with recommendation. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you. thank you, supervisor farrell. i want to thank all of the speakers for coming to this committee. and i especially want to acknowledge supervisor hall. you know, i am definitely in support of having an oversight body that looks at how the money is being spent. i do see the wisdom in what
supervisor farrell is saying. with that said, the question that i have is more given that the expiration date is not for another few weeks, i'm wondering if there is any benefit to at least thinking about ways in which the structure of the committee can be changed now. i worry, when you have a former supervisor, who is the author of the body of this type, who is coming to us and telling us his concerns, i have a worry about moving forward and simply saying that we will extend it and then deal with. it and so i am wondering whether or not we should i maybe at least have a conversation and i don't know if you have had an opportunity to discuss some of the ideas that perhaps supervisor hall has. so that if it needs to be changed, why not just take the
time to do that. you know, before it actually goes into effect. if it's not working and i don't have one way saying it is or it isn't. i don't want to move forward with something that is not working if we can do something about it. and i'm very mindful of the time. and i certainly don't want to be in a situation where we fail to extend the time because i think that we should. but it seems that we might have a little bit of time being october 18th. so just a question for supervisor farrell through the chair. >> and look, i have no problem doing that. i think -- and to me it's going to be a city attorney-driven question how much, because of the voter-approval legislation that we have the ability to amend, besides extension, do you know that off the top of my head? >> off the top of my head i would say that you could expend and if you want to change the composition, you would be doing
what supervisor hall said, which is allowing this body to sunset, and then creating a new body. that would provide oversight. now we would have to look into that, but that is how i think you would proceed. >> so i am happy to look into that, if you want to take it to the next rules committee. no problem. be mindful our last board meeting is in december. mid-december and we have to get through second passage. i'm happy to look into that. i will say off the bat batt if it's a choice of letting it sunset going back to the voters and having a policeman minimum period of time it's not in place i wouldn't be in favor of that.
? >> if it's a choice of having something imperfect or not having something, i would be there with you. through the chair, supervisor hall, if i could ask a question. supervisor, do you want to add something? ? >> i just wanted to say that your discussion here is right on track. it's really good. i would be willing to work with each one of you, if you want, but i think as opposed to what the city attorney said. the original legislation is what you should look at. it's all there. you don't need to send it back to the voters and try to get that passed again. that ashard deal. look at the original legislation and this will be on track. i would suggest that approach, because trying to eliminate any oversight and getting it back to the voters is a tough way to go. but look at the original legislation. it's all there. whatpaques it
not working is the illegality of the way it's been operating. >> which to that point where i was going with it, there was nothing that we'll be able to change, it's more about the operations of the committee itself. which is fine, and we address it by our suggestions to them. >> supervisor farrell, allowing the revenue bond oversight committee to contract with outside agencies that aren't under the thrum of the controller's office, or the sf puc. that is the key. and because when the city services auditing agency is the watchdog, there is no oversight. >> if i may? >> supervisor, you may very well be correct that in the end legally there is nothing we can do and if that is the case, i don't really want to delay it. but if it's okay i would ask that we continue it until no later than next meeting of the rules committee and then i would be supportive of acting at that point.
>> no problem. >> thank you. >> thank you >> thank you. >> okay. so we can make a motion to continue to the next ruleses committee -- >> that would be november1st. >> let me make a motion to amend putting section 1 in twin items 9 and 10 and making sure to amend thats it is an extension until january 1,2014. >> january 1, 2016. >> we would have a motion to amend and without opposition [ gavel ] and we have a motion to continue this to the next rules committee of november 1st. i'm certainly open to hearing how to make this committee as
effective as it can be over the next two weeks and we have the motion and without opposition [ gavel ] at this time i would like to go back to item no. 3. which is our appointment to graffiti advisory board. mr. city attorney, i think we have a response to that question. >> yes although the legislation doesn't specifically address whether the members have to be legal voting age. this is designated for youth organizations and we agreed to allow for members under 18. >> great. so that is good news. i have already expressed before my support for mr. grgich and it's great to have young people and students representing on any number of issues here in the city, but particularly on our graffiti advisory board. >> supervisor campos is. >> i make a motion to move mr.
grgich's nomination forward. if he can sit through our rules committee i think he can do a great job. >> i hope you are not mad at us for keeping you out of [skao-fplt/] we have a motion and without opposition. thank you. madame clerk are there any other announcements? seeing none, meeting is adjourned. thank you. [ gavel ]